1. Field of the Invention:
This invention relates to amusement devices or toys, and, more specifically, aerial flying discs and ring devices.
2. Prior Art:
There have been numerous prior aerial flying discs and rings. Some of these are listed below:
U.S. Pat. No. 3,359,678--Headrick PA1 U.S. Pat. No. 3,724,122--Gillespie PA1 U.S. Pat. No. 2,126,245--Darby PA1 U.S. Pat. No. 3,828,466--Geiger PA1 U.S. Pat. No. 3,939,602--Burke & Meyers PA1 U.S. Pat. No. De. D241,565--Molenaar PA1 U.S. Pat. No. 708,519--Bradshaw PA1 U.S. Pat. No. 3,580,580--Wark & Schladermundt PA1 U.S. Pat. No. 3,765,122--English PA1 U.S. Pat. No. 1,986,937--MacGregor PA1 U.S. Pat. No. 1,991,689--McClintock
These patents deal with flying discs.
These patents deal with flying discs which include one or more perforations in their surface.
These patents deal with flying rings.
A common feature of the patents listed above is that they all include one or more circular rims, flanges, or lips which are oriented generally perpendicular to the initial path of flight. For example, the Bradshaw patent shows a lip, perpendicular to the plane of the ring, at the inner perimeter of the ring, while the English patent shows a very similar lip on the outer perimenter of the ring. The Wark patent shows lips on both the inner and outer perimeters and although these lips are not perpendicular to the plane, they are very nearly so and thus have a similar aerodynamic effect. These lips serve to stabilize the flight by capturing air below the device in a manner analogous to a parachute. However, they contribute a substantial increase in aerodynamic drag which greatly limits the range and duration of flight.
It is clear from reading the disclosures of the Bradshaw, Wark and English patents that they all attempted to dispense with these lips, but were unable to achieve stable flight without them. Bradshaw states at column 2, lines 59-62, that his central opening maintains the quoit in an upright position, which result cannot be secured with so light a quoit when the flange is omitted.
Wark states at column 2, lines 4-6, that he utilizes an outer flange and an inner flange, both of which contribute to the lift of the aerial disc, as well as its stability in flight. He provides ribs or beads at the lower edges of these flanges. At column 2, lines 18-20, he maintains that these ribs or beads have a stabilizing effect during the flight and the outer rib, particularly, does have the ability to hold the rear section at its chosen flight angle of attack. He states further in the same column, lines 24-25, that it has been found that if the outer annular rib is omitted the rear edge of the spinning device tends to rise.
English states at column 2, lines 62-68, that if his circular shaped deflector surface 21 that slopes downwardly and inwardly towards the central opening was merely flat and coplanar with his outer ring portion 19 then the vast majority of the mass of air of the air sheet would slip over the top of the toy and not be able to boost up the toy trailing edge. As a result, the toy leading edge would soon tilt upwardly and its flight would become stalled. At column 3, lines 29-33 he states that the width-to-height ratio may vary within an optimum performance range from 1:1/16 (W:h.sub.1) and 1:1/2(W:h.sub.2). If the ratio is beyond this range to one side (e.g. 1:1/17) then the toy will tend to stall in flight and topple. In this latter statement English is referring to the ratio of the radial width of the ring to the axial height of the rim, and if this ratio is too great--meaning that the rim is too small--an unstable flight will result.
Rodgers, U.S. Pat. No. 4,104,822, designed a flying ring which has no lip per se, however, it employs a blunt, thick cross-section which has drag properties somewhat similar to a lip. However, Rodgers does state that the lift characteristics of his device must be limited in order to limit the possibility of it rolling (banking) to one side and falling to the ground.
Two other prior patents are also noted:
These two patents relate to heavy steel quoits which are intended to be pitched, like horseshoes, at a stake projecting from the ground. Despite their relatively streamlined appearance, they cannot be classed as aerial toys (gliding bodies). This is because their ratio of weight to lifting area is so high that their calculated minimum speed to sustain a gliding level flight is in excess of 150 feet per second (112 MPH). This is more than three times the velocity of 38 FPS which is attained by aerial flying-saucer toys in normal use.
The present inventor sought to develop a new type of circular aerial toy which was capable of exceptionally longrange level flights. This necessitated a thin, streamlined, low drag airfoil free of excess thickness, lips, flanges or rims and in a configuration which balanced the aerodynamic lift at the center of gravity in order to achieve a straight flight--something which had eluded all known previous inventors of circular aerial toys.